UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1564
BILLY K. CRUEY; B. K. CRUEY, PC,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
RICKY LEE EARLY; HOWARD M. GREGORY; ERIC NESTER; ELINOR E.
WILLIAMS, as Magistrate and Agent for the County of
Montgomery, Virginia; KAREN SUE GARNAND, Magistrate and
Agent for the County of Montgomery, Virginia,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
STEPHEN C. HUFF, JR.; R. J. KIRBY, Individually, and as
Deputy Sheriff, and as agent for J. T. Whitt, Sheriff, and
Montgomery County, Virginia; D. L. CONNER, Individually, and
as Deputy Sheriff, and as agent for J. T. Whitt, Sheriff,
and Montgomery County, Virginia; J. T. WHITT, Individually,
and as Sheriff, Montgomery County, Virginia, and as agent
for Montgomery County, Virginia; ROGER DALE NESTER; BRUCE W.
NESTER; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, VIRGINIA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:09-cv-00516-gec)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy K. Cruey, B. K. CRUEY, PC, Shawsville, Virginia, for
Appellants. Matthew E. Kelley, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC,
Roanoke, Virginia; Isak Jordan Howell, Mark Douglas Loftis,
WOODS ROGERS, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia; Christy Monolo, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Billy K. Cruey, acting on behalf of himself and his
law firm, B. K. Cruey, PC, seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing some, but not all, defendants and denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) motion. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders that Cruey
seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor are they appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. See McCall v. Deeds,
849 F.2d 1259, 1259 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he denial of Rule 54(b)
certification is not appealable.”); Robinson v. Parke-Davis
& Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (holding that dismissal
of some, but not all, claims or parties not immediately
appealable absent Rule 54(b) certification). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3